From kde-bindings  Sun Jul 15 16:55:47 2007
From: "Gary L. Greene, Jr." <greeneg () tolharadys ! net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:55:47 +0000
To: kde-bindings
Subject: Re: [Kde-bindings] Splitting up the SMOKE library
Message-Id: <200707150955.47261.greeneg () tolharadys ! net>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-bindings&m=118451861029334

On Sunday 15 July 2007 04:56:07 am Arno Rehn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just thought about splitting the SMOKE libraries, so that SmokeKDE would
> only contain the KDE classes, SmokeQsci only QScintilla classes etc.,
> because at the moment it is rather ugly that we need to have all the Qt
> classes again in SmokeKDE and can't split Qwt and QScintilla from SmokeQt.
> In theory it is quite simple and I think I have something like a concept.
> However it would require one or more changes in the API of Smoke, so we
> also would have to update the sources of all the bindings that depend on
> Smoke. The one change that will probably affect most parts of the bindings
> is that I'd plan to make Smoke::Index a struct that looks like
>
> struct Index {
> 	short index;
> 	Smoke *smoke;
> };
>
> What do you think of splitting up Smoke? If you want to, I can give more
> details on what I would do to split it up and make it work correctly.

This has been the one thing that I've heard requested from the PerlQt users 
more and more (that and getting a PerlQt4 port done, which with my time being 
limited due to work is difficult). And, considering that bindings don't have 
a way of loading in only what they want from the smoke libraries, the extra 
memory from loading in the entire SMOKE library adds up fast when compared to 
say Perl-Gtk+, which only loads component libraries as needed, makes this an 
excellent suggestion.
_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings